The horrible truth about the horrible truth

[Jose Collado]

Uh, not exactly. In this field, at least, the two terms are not synonymous. A 'skeptic' is one who doubts accepted beliefs.

That's incorrect. I know skeptics who believe in goD. They don't doubt that accepted belief.

A skeptic is happy to be proven wrong. That's why they're skeptics and not cynics. Skeptics have no issue with belief. If people can provide usfficient proof that meets the protocols that qualify it as such, then a skeptic will accept it.

Personally, I have no problem with belief. Belief can make people do the coolest things. It can also make people do the stupidest things. The problem I have is people who claim to have "proof" or "evidence" or idealistic individuals who drum up bunk and then call others "blind" or "sheeple" when their bunk is exposed.

 

[Schuyler]

That's incorrect. I know skeptics who believe in goD. They don't doubt that accepted belief.

Jose, you just can't go making up your own definitions to suit yourself. What I said originally remains correct. 'Debunkers' do so with derision, scorn, and personal attacks. They stake a position and hold to it no matter what. Look the words up in any dictionary, online or not. Here's just one, from the Random House Unabridged. Other dictionaries' definitions are similar.

skeptic: n. 1. A person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 2. A person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. 3. A person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it. 4. (cap) Philos. a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible....(blah blah, not relevant)

debunk: v.t. to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment,etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated. --Syn, disparage, ridicule, lampoon.

It might be useful to examone the word excoriate, since that is used in the definition of debunk.

excoriate, v.t. 1. To denounce or berate severely, flay verbally. 2. To strip off or remove the skin from.

From: Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary; special second edition. New York: Random House, 1987, 2214pp, ISBN: 0-679-4026-2.

You see the difference here? One is being doubtful, and the other is being a bastard about it. In the UFO field we tend to use the word 'debunker' to apply to people who 'disparage, ridicule, and lampoon' positions others take with regards to the truth of an event, including personal attacks. These include people like Klass, whom I mentioned, Randi, and even Michael Horn who, from a rather opposite view, defends the Meier hoax without regard to the tremendous amount of evidence against it. This usage of the term is supported by the definitions above. I see little point and less usefulness for you to continue to insist on personal definitions from your own idiolect.

And, just to show my own position here, which I have so far avoided, I agree with you completely on your position regarding conspiracies. Not that there can't be one, but most of them come out of the imaginations of people who are prone to believe anyway.

 

[Jose Collado]

Reality dictates that wikipedia reference is not entirely true. I know of people involved with the Skeptical Society who believe in goD. As a skeptic you cannot argue goD does not exist because you cannot rationally prove he/she/it doesn't. That's where cynicism plays a role and that's where people confuse the two.

In the skepticism circle we call conspiracy nuts...well, nuts, because as you put it, they 'disparage, ridicule, and lampoon' those who dare to speak against them.

A bit of a double standard situation don't you think? A debunker and a conspiracy theorist, in my opinion, both travel down the same dead end street, but on opposite sides of the road.

 

[Schuyler]

Reality dictates that wikipedia reference is not entirely true. I know of people involved with the Skeptical Society who believe in goD.

I'm at a loss. WHAT Wikipedia reference? No one here quoted Wikipedia. And in any case, what does this have to do with god? And who cares?

In the skepticism circle we call conspiracy nuts...well, nuts, because as you put it, they 'disparage, ridicule, and lampoon' those who dare to speak against them.

No, no, not as "I" put it, as the dictionary puts it. But, then, you put yourself above the dictionary.

A bit of a double standard situation don't you think? A debunker and a conspiracy theorist, in my opinion, both travel down the same dead end street, but on opposite sides of the road.

I believe that was my point, not yours. It is PRECISELY why I mentioned Horn in my last post. I don't think you are listening to what I have to say, Jose. I can't see that you are staying on track here. I think, perhaps, you are one of these people who just has to be right. It's your rep on the line, buddy. I don't give a shit.

 

[cottonzway]

Schuyler,

If this is the stupidest then what are you doing here my friend?

I get your point though. My point here is the guy spouts off like an ass (IMO) and then when I ask him to explain his positions as to WHY he says what he says he keeps acting in that manner. I'm learning my lesson, but I find people like that to be quite ignorant and I gave the guy a chance to prove me wrong.

I mean who says something like "I'm not hear to fight", then gets asked a civl question, and then reponds like a child? You are right though as it is a waste of time. I just figured I would give someone the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jose Collado]

I'm at a loss. WHAT Wikipedia reference? No one here quoted Wikipedia. And in any case, what does this have to do with god? And who cares?

Maybe you should re-read what you've already posted and then read what I responded with. To claim that skeptics, whether it be a wikipedia, dictionary or your own opinion, are "A person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it." is ridiculous when i know of skeptics who are in skeptical groups who actually believe in goD, Christianity and religion. So, you see (or not) THAT was my point.

How exactly am I going off topic when you yourself are doing the exact same thing. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. From the get go I mentioned I had posted on topics and advised the "tinfoilers" to continue the discussion there.

Schuyler,My point here is the guy spouts off like an ass (IMO) and then when I ask him to explain his positions as to WHY he says what he says he keeps acting in that manner. I'm learning my lesson, but I find people like that to be quite ignorant and I gave the guy a chance to prove me wrong.

I mean who says something like "I'm not hear to fight", then gets asked a civl question, and then reponds like a child? You are right though as it is a waste of time. I just figured I would give someone the benefit of the doubt.

Wait...what? You chipped in out of nowhere and then threw a vague question about NWO. How exactly is that asking me to explain my position? You asked me to explain a conspiracy theory but YOU never presented one.

I ALREADY explained to both you and pixelsmith that I have ALREADY participated in topics that were based on conspiracy theories but you obviously ignored that...many times.

When did I respond like a child? You haven't asked a single question that merits a response. You asked what I though of the NWO. I responded. Maybe you should present a conspiracy theory and ask the same question again. Who the hell knows what you're talking about? I'm no psychic. Then you claim I started a topic as a method of ridicule when I actually present the topic as a joke. I didn't see anyone else kick up a stink. Maybe it just got on your conspiracy nerves? Get a tissue for your issues mate.

I'm a skeptic, not a debunker. I proved this when I avoided theories from your NWO to 9/11. I have no interest in either. If I were a debunker, I'd jump on that shit like a fly.

Maybe we should all just end this thread. Seems it's going around in circles. Maybe it's a conspiracy in itself.

AGAIN, if you want to discuss my contribution to conspiracy theories, then go to the topics I have already posted on. I don't care to respond to vague questioning from idealists who judge character from an avatar as per your initial post.

 

[Schuyler]

Jose is using circular arguments. He is also exhibiting symptoms of the Groundhog Syndrome. That's when you nail a point, and he changes the subject and pops up somewhere else. You can't get anywhere in an argument when people like Jose insist on creating their own definitions.

We get guys like this once in awhile on here. Lance Moody was another one. He got banned for being a jerk. They exhibit no particular knowledge of the subject, but consider themselves capable of being an instant expert. You can tell that in Jose's answers where he misses the issue. He obviously didn't know who Horn was, for example, or he wouldn't have commented as he did. My guess is Jose has never read a book on UFOs, never studied the (so-called) 'evidence' of a conspiracy theory, has no knowledge of anything the least bit paranormal, and is basically running on his own fumes. He thinks he's pretty smart, but he's the only one who thinks so.

Guys like this do not bring much to the table and are just basically annoying. They're not contributing as much as they are bitching at one person after another, as this thread shows. So I hereby award Jose Collado the

"Paracast Order of the Groundhog"​

awarded for the most words printed with the least content, for attacking people in an ad hominem manner rather than dealing with the actual issues, and for wasting everyone's time. Phil Klass would be proud!

Part of this award is a shroud placed over his avatar and name so that he will never be seen again. R.I.P. Jose! Click on User CP and add him to your 'Ignore' List. It is a fitting tribute to someone who contributes nothing useful. Adios!

 

[cottonzway]

For what it is worth the movie "Groundhog Day" is one of my favorite movies of all-time.

 

[Jose Collado]

...again, the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe you should just move on already?

 

[spacebrother]

All of this could be avoided if people would start to use the term I am trying to get into general usage, which is "fundamentalist skeptic." Dictionary definitions aside, I always thought that a "debunker" was, literally, someone who tries to expose and refute "bunk."

Which brings up a quote from my favorite radio personality, Jean Shepherd:

"You are dealing in bunkum, sir."

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I say, stop trying to apply labels as that is half the problem.